Europe pins Google down on self-promoting behavior

European Commission says Google must label services—and show competitor links.

Google has proposed a number of solutions for de-Googlifying search results to answer accusations of antitrust practices from the European commission, according to proposals released Thursday. Google’s suggested fixes include labeling search results that point to Google’s own services and separating the services from normal results for the next five years. The search giant also agreed to prominently display links to three competitors in "specialized search" fields like shopping and travel, mollifying competitor complaints that they're being drowned out by Google's promotion of its own results.

The European Commission states that Google’s market share for Web search is “well above 90 percent in most European countries.” The company prominently displays links to its own services like Google Shopping, says the commission, without notifying customers that the links are prominently placed because Google wants them there, not because they have been democratically pushed to the top by popular use.

Google was also taken to task over its use of content from competing websites (user reviews of products are given as an example), which sites can only pull out of Google’s talons by opting out of appearing in search results entirely. Further, the commission expressed concern that Google’s advertising contracts with Web publishers often include exclusivity clauses that prevent the publishers from advertising themselves on other search engines.

As a solution, Google has proposed for the next five years to label promoted links of its own services, as well as provide competing services the chance to opt out of Google using their content while preserving their natural rankings in search. Google also stated it would stop the search advertising exclusivity agreements.

The commission is submitting Google’s new business style for feedback by creating a month-long market test, and it states that “complainants, third parties, and members of the public” will be able to comment on it. If Google’s changes meet all of the commissions concerns, the commission said it will make them legally binding for Google.

I remember a time when Microsoft made OEM's pay for every PC they sold, regardless of the OS installed on that system. What happened to "Do No Evil", or has that been updated to "Do No Evil, where there are chances of getting caught"

"I ONLY WANT GOOGLE TO ONLY BENEFIT ME, I DON'T WANT TO SIMULTANEOUSLY BENEFIT GOOGLE!!!!"

(queue the gnashing of teeth from the anti Google nutjobs)

Well, Google's being pretty extortionate on some issues. They refuse to allow newspapers, for example, to be listed in Google Search without copying their content to Google News without their permission. That's abusing their search monopoly to further their other interests. Similarly with review sites. Google's practices are anti-competitive and it's a very good thing the EU is cracking down on their BS.

"I ONLY WANT GOOGLE TO ONLY BENEFIT ME, I DON'T WANT TO SIMULTANEOUSLY BENEFIT GOOGLE!!!!"

(queue the gnashing of teeth from the anti Google nutjobs)

Well, Google's being pretty extortionate on some issues. They refuse to allow newspapers, for example, to be listed in Google Search without copying their content to Google News without their permission. That's abusing their search monopoly to further their other interests. Similarly with review sites. Google's practices are anti-competitive and it's a very good thing the EU is cracking down on their BS.

I'm not seeing the problem.

If newspapers don't want traffic being driven to their websites by google then they don't need to be listed in google. I don't see the problem with google showing excerpts from articles to make it easier for people to know if they are interested in the story or not.

I don't understand why Google is being forced to promote competitor links and kicked for promoting their own services. I can't think of any store or service that is forced to do this. If you don't like google results don't use google (gasp!)

EU: "So there's nothing actually illegal here, but you're big and people are threatened by you. We'd like to be seen as doing something about that. Here's that something, and we don't think it's onerous."Google: "That looks like a path of least resistance. And we certainly don't want to lose the European market. We can agree to do that stuff. Let's roll."

Well not hearing Google whine about it at least. Or at least the article doesn't indicate that they are. They actually seem willing to work with the EU. Unlike some who I seem to remember fought everything tooth and nail....hi Microsoft.

"I ONLY WANT GOOGLE TO ONLY BENEFIT ME, I DON'T WANT TO SIMULTANEOUSLY BENEFIT GOOGLE!!!!"

(queue the gnashing of teeth from the anti Google nutjobs)

Well, Google's being pretty extortionate on some issues. They refuse to allow newspapers, for example, to be listed in Google Search without copying their content to Google News without their permission. That's abusing their search monopoly to further their other interests. Similarly with review sites. Google's practices are anti-competitive and it's a very good thing the EU is cracking down on their BS.

I'm not seeing the problem.

If newspapers don't want traffic being driven to their websites by google then they don't need to be listed in google. I don't see the problem with google showing excerpts from articles to make it easier for people to know if they are interested in the story or not.

Not excerpts for articles. For Google News, Google copies the entire article and puts it up. Google Search is different. Similarly, Google are copying all the reviews off review sites and putting them on Google sites. What's unfair is that Google are saying to these people "You either have to let us copy your articles/reviews entirely AND list you in search results, or not let us index you at all." That's extortionate, considering Google has an effective monopoly on Internet search and website discovery. They're forcing publishers and review sites to let Google copy their content by saying they must allow them to do that to be listed. That's unfair.

"I ONLY WANT GOOGLE TO ONLY BENEFIT ME, I DON'T WANT TO SIMULTANEOUSLY BENEFIT GOOGLE!!!!"

(queue the gnashing of teeth from the anti Google nutjobs)

Well, Google's being pretty extortionate on some issues. They refuse to allow newspapers, for example, to be listed in Google Search without copying their content to Google News without their permission. That's abusing their search monopoly to further their other interests. Similarly with review sites. Google's practices are anti-competitive and it's a very good thing the EU is cracking down on their BS.

I'm not seeing the problem.

If newspapers don't want traffic being driven to their websites by google then they don't need to be listed in google. I don't see the problem with google showing excerpts from articles to make it easier for people to know if they are interested in the story or not.

Not excerpts for articles. For Google News, Google copies the entire article and puts it up. Google Search is different. Similarly, Google are copying all the reviews off review sites and putting them on Google sites. What's unfair is that Google are saying to these people "You either have to let us copy your articles/reviews entirely AND list you in search results, or not let us index you at all." That's extortionate, considering Google has an effective monopoly on Internet search and website discovery. They're forcing publishers and review sites to let Google copy their content by saying they must allow them to do that to be listed. That's unfair.

Still not seeing what's unfair about it.

If these sites don't think they gain anything from Google having their stories up then they can be delisted.

What it all comes back to is we've got a bunch of spoiled brats in the old media segments that want to get all of the benefits from Google while allowing no benefits to Google.

wow, such is the cost of success. You're too successful, and people come to you. Therefore you should let people know they could use your competitor.

Could this ever be possible in physical products? Services?

Would a restaurant need to promote the restaurant down the street, if it attracted more customers?

I really don't get it.

it is about protecting the consumer. If that restaurant had 90% market share and kiosk outside every persons door then who can compete? They can price how they like and feed you what they want. This is to protect you so you can have alternative choices.

"I ONLY WANT GOOGLE TO ONLY BENEFIT ME, I DON'T WANT TO SIMULTANEOUSLY BENEFIT GOOGLE!!!!"

(queue the gnashing of teeth from the anti Google nutjobs)

Well, Google's being pretty extortionate on some issues. They refuse to allow newspapers, for example, to be listed in Google Search without copying their content to Google News without their permission. That's abusing their search monopoly to further their other interests. Similarly with review sites. Google's practices are anti-competitive and it's a very good thing the EU is cracking down on their BS.

I'm not seeing the problem.

If newspapers don't want traffic being driven to their websites by google then they don't need to be listed in google. I don't see the problem with google showing excerpts from articles to make it easier for people to know if they are interested in the story or not.

Not excerpts for articles. For Google News, Google copies the entire article and puts it up. Google Search is different. Similarly, Google are copying all the reviews off review sites and putting them on Google sites. What's unfair is that Google are saying to these people "You either have to let us copy your articles/reviews entirely AND list you in search results, or not let us index you at all." That's extortionate, considering Google has an effective monopoly on Internet search and website discovery. They're forcing publishers and review sites to let Google copy their content by saying they must allow them to do that to be listed. That's unfair.

If I remember correctly Google started by just linking to sites but publishers sued them for copyright infringement for having summaries and descriptions of the links that used text from the site. So Google removed the links and infringing text from the site. Next the publishers whined that their text wasn't listed in Google search results, but they can't list their content without running foul of the previous lawsuit so Google told them that if they want to be listed they have to list the content themselves including the text that the link is pointing to to avoid lawsuits.... seems like the publishers made their own bed to me.

wow, such is the cost of success. You're too successful, and people come to you. Therefore you should let people know they could use your competitor.

Could this ever be possible in physical products? Services?

Would a restaurant need to promote the restaurant down the street, if it attracted more customers?

I really don't get it.

it is about protecting the consumer. If that restaurant had 90% market share and kiosk outside every persons door then who can compete? They can price how they like and feed you what they want. This is to protect you so you can have alternative choices.

You can't compare these things.

There is literally nothing that Google does which makes their products more accessible than Bing or Yahoo or Ask.com of any other search portal.

Google is winning because they are excellent, and they're controlled by a culture of excellence and innovation.

That's the real problem, everyone else wants to keep their old culture of stagnance and embezzlement and Google simply won't allow room in the market for such slothful competitors.

"I ONLY WANT GOOGLE TO ONLY BENEFIT ME, I DON'T WANT TO SIMULTANEOUSLY BENEFIT GOOGLE!!!!"

(queue the gnashing of teeth from the anti Google nutjobs)

Well, Google's being pretty extortionate on some issues. They refuse to allow newspapers, for example, to be listed in Google Search without copying their content to Google News without their permission. That's abusing their search monopoly to further their other interests. Similarly with review sites. Google's practices are anti-competitive and it's a very good thing the EU is cracking down on their BS.

What "search monopoly" are you talking about? The fact that almost everyone voluntarily chooses to use Google? That's like saying McDonalds has a burger monopoly as you drive past their competitors to buy a burger at McDonalds. This isn't the same thing as Microsoft with Windows where you bought a bunch of software that ran on top of it and were locked in to that OS if you wanted to use that software. And then Microsoft leveraged that to give away software with it that to gain ground on competitors. Nothing is locking you in to a search and you can just as easily do your next search on Yahoo or Bing or anything else.

I remember a time when Microsoft made OEM's pay for every PC they sold, regardless of the OS installed on that system. What happened to "Do No Evil", or has that been updated to "Do No Evil, where there are chances of getting caught"

It was never "Do no evil." It was "Don't be evil." A subtle but important difference.

"I ONLY WANT GOOGLE TO ONLY BENEFIT ME, I DON'T WANT TO SIMULTANEOUSLY BENEFIT GOOGLE!!!!"

(queue the gnashing of teeth from the anti Google nutjobs)

Well, Google's being pretty extortionate on some issues. They refuse to allow newspapers, for example, to be listed in Google Search without copying their content to Google News without their permission. That's abusing their search monopoly to further their other interests. Similarly with review sites. Google's practices are anti-competitive and it's a very good thing the EU is cracking down on their BS.

What "search monopoly" are you talking about? The fact that almost everyone voluntarily chooses to use Google? That's like saying McDonalds has a burger monopoly as you drive past their competitors to buy a burger at McDonalds. This isn't the same thing as Microsoft with Windows where you bought a bunch of software that ran on top of it and were locked in to that OS if you wanted to use that software. And then Microsoft leveraged that to give away software with it that to gain ground on competitors. Nothing is locking you in to a search and you can just as easily do your next search on Yahoo or Bing or anything else.

Monopoly might have been the wrong word. My point was if you aren't on Google, people won't find you.

"I ONLY WANT GOOGLE TO ONLY BENEFIT ME, I DON'T WANT TO SIMULTANEOUSLY BENEFIT GOOGLE!!!!"

(queue the gnashing of teeth from the anti Google nutjobs)

Well, Google's being pretty extortionate on some issues. They refuse to allow newspapers, for example, to be listed in Google Search without copying their content to Google News without their permission. That's abusing their search monopoly to further their other interests. Similarly with review sites. Google's practices are anti-competitive and it's a very good thing the EU is cracking down on their BS.

I'm not seeing the problem.

If newspapers don't want traffic being driven to their websites by google then they don't need to be listed in google. I don't see the problem with google showing excerpts from articles to make it easier for people to know if they are interested in the story or not.

Not excerpts for articles. For Google News, Google copies the entire article and puts it up. Google Search is different. Similarly, Google are copying all the reviews off review sites and putting them on Google sites. What's unfair is that Google are saying to these people "You either have to let us copy your articles/reviews entirely AND list you in search results, or not let us index you at all." That's extortionate, considering Google has an effective monopoly on Internet search and website discovery. They're forcing publishers and review sites to let Google copy their content by saying they must allow them to do that to be listed. That's unfair.

If I remember correctly Google started by just linking to sites but publishers sued them for copyright infringement for having summaries and descriptions of the links that used text from the site. So Google removed the links and infringing text from the site. Next the publishers whined that their text wasn't listed in Google search results, but they can't list their content without running foul of the previous lawsuit so Google told them that if they want to be listed they have to list the content themselves including the text that the link is pointing to to avoid lawsuits.... seems like the publishers made their own bed to me.

Yeah, they're now doing the right thing with News. Not so for review sites though, still pulling the same BS.

"I ONLY WANT GOOGLE TO ONLY BENEFIT ME, I DON'T WANT TO SIMULTANEOUSLY BENEFIT GOOGLE!!!!"

(queue the gnashing of teeth from the anti Google nutjobs)

Well, Google's being pretty extortionate on some issues. They refuse to allow newspapers, for example, to be listed in Google Search without copying their content to Google News without their permission. That's abusing their search monopoly to further their other interests. Similarly with review sites. Google's practices are anti-competitive and it's a very good thing the EU is cracking down on their BS.

I'm not seeing the problem.

If newspapers don't want traffic being driven to their websites by google then they don't need to be listed in google. I don't see the problem with google showing excerpts from articles to make it easier for people to know if they are interested in the story or not.

Not excerpts for articles. For Google News, Google copies the entire article and puts it up. Google Search is different. Similarly, Google are copying all the reviews off review sites and putting them on Google sites. What's unfair is that Google are saying to these people "You either have to let us copy your articles/reviews entirely AND list you in search results, or not let us index you at all." That's extortionate, considering Google has an effective monopoly on Internet search and website discovery. They're forcing publishers and review sites to let Google copy their content by saying they must allow them to do that to be listed. That's unfair.

If I remember correctly Google started by just linking to sites but publishers sued them for copyright infringement for having summaries and descriptions of the links that used text from the site. So Google removed the links and infringing text from the site. Next the publishers whined that their text wasn't listed in Google search results, but they can't list their content without running foul of the previous lawsuit so Google told them that if they want to be listed they have to list the content themselves including the text that the link is pointing to to avoid lawsuits.... seems like the publishers made their own bed to me.

Yeah your right in fact google used to listen to the robots file of news sites and nothing else. If you publish anything and don't exclude it using the robots file its generally considered to be public. So google made a search tailored to news sites using that used only that info and got bitched at. So yes the "publishers made their own bed" and google did nothing wrong. This is still true for review sites. All the admin of said site has to do is edit his fucking robots file nothing else.

So BBC needs to play an equal amount of ITV, SKY, HBO, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, MTV, ect commercials on there network otherwise they would be favoring their own content and why doesn't the BBC show weather for Waverly, KS

wow, such is the cost of success. You're too successful, and people come to you. Therefore you should let people know they could use your competitor.

Could this ever be possible in physical products? Services?

Would a restaurant need to promote the restaurant down the street, if it attracted more customers?

I really don't get it.

Salesman: "I know you probably came to our Ford dealership because we're the best-selling car company in America and have a recently-well-earned reputation for good craftsmanship... but have you checked out the Yugo place across the street? They have plenty of shabbily built deathtraps that might interest you more."

Customer: "But... I want a Mustang. Why are we even having this conversation?"

Salesman: "I'm just trying to be helpful and give our competitors a fighting chance, no matter how much their technically inferior products impede them in the marketplace!"

"I ONLY WANT GOOGLE TO ONLY BENEFIT ME, I DON'T WANT TO SIMULTANEOUSLY BENEFIT GOOGLE!!!!"

(queue the gnashing of teeth from the anti Google nutjobs)

Well, Google's being pretty extortionate on some issues. They refuse to allow newspapers, for example, to be listed in Google Search without copying their content to Google News without their permission. That's abusing their search monopoly to further their other interests. Similarly with review sites. Google's practices are anti-competitive and it's a very good thing the EU is cracking down on their BS.

I'm not seeing the problem.

If newspapers don't want traffic being driven to their websites by google then they don't need to be listed in google. I don't see the problem with google showing excerpts from articles to make it easier for people to know if they are interested in the story or not.

Not excerpts for articles. For Google News, Google copies the entire article and puts it up. Google Search is different. Similarly, Google are copying all the reviews off review sites and putting them on Google sites. What's unfair is that Google are saying to these people "You either have to let us copy your articles/reviews entirely AND list you in search results, or not let us index you at all." That's extortionate, considering Google has an effective monopoly on Internet search and website discovery. They're forcing publishers and review sites to let Google copy their content by saying they must allow them to do that to be listed. That's unfair.

How do I see entire articles in google news? All I can see are the article headlines, the name of the news source, and a short 1-2 sentence excerpt. Clicking on it takes me to the news site. Is there some option I am missing where I can access the complete article without going to the news site?

I remember a time when Microsoft made OEM's pay for every PC they sold, regardless of the OS installed on that system. What happened to "Do No Evil", or has that been updated to "Do No Evil, where there are chances of getting caught"

It was never "Do no evil." It was "Don't be evil." A subtle but important difference.

"I ONLY WANT GOOGLE TO ONLY BENEFIT ME, I DON'T WANT TO SIMULTANEOUSLY BENEFIT GOOGLE!!!!"

(queue the gnashing of teeth from the anti Google nutjobs)

Well, Google's being pretty extortionate on some issues. They refuse to allow newspapers, for example, to be listed in Google Search without copying their content to Google News without their permission. That's abusing their search monopoly to further their other interests. Similarly with review sites. Google's practices are anti-competitive and it's a very good thing the EU is cracking down on their BS.

I'm not seeing the problem.

If newspapers don't want traffic being driven to their websites by google then they don't need to be listed in google. I don't see the problem with google showing excerpts from articles to make it easier for people to know if they are interested in the story or not.

Not excerpts for articles. For Google News, Google copies the entire article and puts it up. Google Search is different. Similarly, Google are copying all the reviews off review sites and putting them on Google sites. What's unfair is that Google are saying to these people "You either have to let us copy your articles/reviews entirely AND list you in search results, or not let us index you at all." That's extortionate, considering Google has an effective monopoly on Internet search and website discovery. They're forcing publishers and review sites to let Google copy their content by saying they must allow them to do that to be listed. That's unfair.

[citation needed]

The only full articles I've ever seen on Google News are the ones that they get straight from AP and Reuters. They license that content the same as every other news source.

I actually do think it's unfair of google to not allow an opt out of just google news or reviews, but let's not spread misinformation.

"I ONLY WANT GOOGLE TO ONLY BENEFIT ME, I DON'T WANT TO SIMULTANEOUSLY BENEFIT GOOGLE!!!!"

(queue the gnashing of teeth from the anti Google nutjobs)

Well, Google's being pretty extortionate on some issues. They refuse to allow newspapers, for example, to be listed in Google Search without copying their content to Google News without their permission. That's abusing their search monopoly to further their other interests. Similarly with review sites. Google's practices are anti-competitive and it's a very good thing the EU is cracking down on their BS.

I'm not seeing the problem.

If newspapers don't want traffic being driven to their websites by google then they don't need to be listed in google. I don't see the problem with google showing excerpts from articles to make it easier for people to know if they are interested in the story or not.

Not excerpts for articles. For Google News, Google copies the entire article and puts it up. Google Search is different. Similarly, Google are copying all the reviews off review sites and putting them on Google sites. What's unfair is that Google are saying to these people "You either have to let us copy your articles/reviews entirely AND list you in search results, or not let us index you at all." That's extortionate, considering Google has an effective monopoly on Internet search and website discovery. They're forcing publishers and review sites to let Google copy their content by saying they must allow them to do that to be listed. That's unfair.

[citation needed]

The only full articles I've ever seen on Google News are the ones that they get straight from AP and Reuters. They license that content the same as every other news source.

I actually do think it's unfair of google to not allow an opt out of just google news or reviews, but let's not spread misinformation.

They do it's the robots file. The thing is these sites are opting in and are just too stupid lazy or ignorant not to.

"I ONLY WANT GOOGLE TO ONLY BENEFIT ME, I DON'T WANT TO SIMULTANEOUSLY BENEFIT GOOGLE!!!!"

(queue the gnashing of teeth from the anti Google nutjobs)

Well, Google's being pretty extortionate on some issues. They refuse to allow newspapers, for example, to be listed in Google Search without copying their content to Google News without their permission. That's abusing their search monopoly to further their other interests. Similarly with review sites. Google's practices are anti-competitive and it's a very good thing the EU is cracking down on their BS.

NOT true. Brazilian newspapers all pulled out of Google News together, but they are still listed in the normal search results just fine. It probably does reduce their ranking somewhat, but that is all.

My mind is just boggled that people apply the word "monopoly" to Google in the same way they did to Microsoft etc. You pretty much couldn't buy a PC in the old days without buying a Windows license, and software compatibility issues really did produce "lock in" to Windows. How does any of that apply to Google? NO ONE is forced to use their stuff, and if you choose not to use it, life goes on without any difficulty, because the internet is based on standards, not lock-in to one company's proprietary specs. The very fact that there are plenty of people who switch to Bing and other services and survive just fine, without any pain other than the mental pain caused by getting inferior search results, proves that there is no monopoly involved.

If they can't stop you from leaving, and there are effective alternatives, and those alternatives don't have some fundamental disadvantage compared to Google other than the IQs of the developers, then there IS NO MONOPOLY. News sites have left Google News, and nobody and nothing stopped them, and they are surviving just fine. This is not about monopoly, this is about competitors stirring up "big bad Google" fears for competitive advantage. Google is not perfect, and it is good to keep some pressure on them, but come on... they are NOT a monopoly.

I want to lead off by saying I agree with the majority that it seems like excessive regulation by the EU, but what I DON'T understand is why this is any different in people's minds than BrowserChoice.eu.

In choosing to use one product (Google Search; Windows), another product is automatically promoted over competitors (Google Shopping; Internet Explorer). The competition still exists, but is nullified in the eyes of the EU by the "effective monopoly" that the company in question has over the market in question (Web services; Desktop OS).

Google is just working with them because they've seen the precedent. Microsoft didn't, and therefore they fought because the logic that the majority is using here held just as true then as it does now.

EDIT: Ninja'd (sort of) by AreWeThereYeti (awesome name, incidentally). That being said, I don't know if I'm sold on the fundamental difference between the two cases. "It was pretty much impossible to buy a PC without a Windows license" translates, to me, to "most consumers opted to buy PCs because it was the brand they were familiar with/was cheaper than Mac OS." Now, Google is the powers the default search of three of the four major web browsers and is tremendously horizontally integrated. So, yes, there are competing services, but that doesn't mean that antitrust regulations don't apply.

wow, such is the cost of success. You're too successful, and people come to you. Therefore you should let people know they could use your competitor.

Could this ever be possible in physical products? Services?

Would a restaurant need to promote the restaurant down the street, if it attracted more customers?

I really don't get it.

it is about protecting the consumer. If that restaurant had 90% market share and kiosk outside every persons door then who can compete? They can price how they like and feed you what they want. This is to protect you so you can have alternative choices.

More along the lines of:

If that restaurant had a 60% market share and falling and offered only food that was popular, how could unpopular food compete?

I want to lead off by saying I agree with the majority that it seems like excessive regulation by the EU, but what I DON'T understand is why this is any different in people's minds than BrowserChoice.eu.

In choosing to use one product (Google Search; Windows), another product is automatically promoted over competitors (Google Shopping; Internet Explorer). The competition still exists, but is nullified in the eyes of the EU by the "effective monopoly" that the company in question has over the market in question (Web services; Desktop OS).

Google is just working with them because they've seen the precedent. Microsoft didn't, and therefore they fought because the logic that the majority is using here held just as true then as it does now.

Microsoft were the ones who proposed the browser choice, not the European Commision.